ORDER I.A. No.9384 of 2020: 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. 2. As per office report, there is a delay of 606 days in filing the appeal. The reason assigned is that after the order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant was under the impression that respondent would comply with the order. However, after a long lapse of time also, nothing happened. Hence, the instant appeal was filed thereafter. The same is disputed by the respondent. 3. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that the reason assigned by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal constitutes a sufficient cause. Hence, I.A. No.9384 of 2020 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Heard learned counsels. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.4.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19622 of 2016, in remanding the matter to the controlling authority to decide the question of interest, the respondent therein is in appeal. 6. The case of the appellant herein is that he was appointed on 10.8.1977 and retired on 31.05.2008. On retirement he was paid an amount of Rs.2,97,000/- as gratuity since the maximum payable amount was only Rs.3,50,000/-. The ceiling over the said amount was subsequently enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- by a notification issued in the year 2010. Therefore, he filed an application before the authority for enhancement of salary based on the said notification. An application was filed for the grant of the benefit. The said application was allowed by the controlling authority vide order dated 18.11.2014. Thereafter an appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner. The same was dismissed on the ground of delay of about two years. Thereafter, the instant writ petition was filed. 7. The learned Single Judge, who considered the case, came to the view that it is for the authority to decide the said question and remanded the matter to the controlling authority. 8. The same is disputed by the appellant namely the respondent before the learned Single Judge who contends that admittedly there is a delay of almost two years in filing the appeal before the authority. That notification with regard to enhancement of salary was w.e.f. 17.5.2010. It is applicable for all those persons who have retired between 1.1.2006 to 31.8.2008. 8. The same is disputed by the appellant namely the respondent before the learned Single Judge who contends that admittedly there is a delay of almost two years in filing the appeal before the authority. That notification with regard to enhancement of salary was w.e.f. 17.5.2010. It is applicable for all those persons who have retired between 1.1.2006 to 31.8.2008. Since the said payment was not made in spite of the notification, an application was preferred by the appellant before the controlling authority. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant would be entitled to interest from the date of notification namely 17.5.2010. The contention of the writ petitioner that he is entitled for interest from the date of dismissal of their appeal, does not hold much water. It is the date of entitlement and not the date of grant or refusal that matters. In law, the day, the notification came into effect, he would be entitled to that relief. Only because the respondent denied its payment and the same had to be litigated, would not mean that from the date of such an order he is entitled for the relief. Therefore, we are of the view that it would not be necessary to remand the matter to the controlling authority as ordered by the learned Single Judge. The litigation has been going on since 2013. It is high time that the same be put to an end. Since it is only a question of interest, it would be just and appropriate to direct the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 17.5.2010 till the amount is paid to the appellant. Appeal disposed off accordingly.